in from maryland. we will focus on the legacy of former british prime minister margaret thatcher with a columnist for "the economist." "washington journal" is next. host: good morning and welcome. 24 hours after the attacks in boston, flags remain at half staff in washington and boston. no one has claimed responsibility. the investigation is wide open with 30 agencies looking for clues. the victim's, and 8-year-old from boston, a 29-year-old from massachusetts, and the third person, a chinese national attending graduate school at family --versity, her her identity has not been

released, waiting for permission former family. we are taking your phone calls. others, 382. send us a tweet. post your comments on facebook. and you can e-mail us. cod timesith the cape this morning, courtesy of the newseum in washington. pictures of people in flowers at the site of the two bombings in massachusetts. also, pictures of the two victims of we know about, martin richards and crystal campbell, both from massachusetts. the front page of the washington times this morning, this is their headline --

that the "washington times " on the bombing. also, here's the new york times. in the new "new york times, a senior law-enforcement officials said they were looking the

connection between pressure cookers, which is how the bombs were used, and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. some reporting from the papers this morning. getting your reaction, day two

of your reaction to the bombings in boston. we begin with charles, an independent caller. aller: i'm just calling about fox reporter in boston going around asking people about the situation that happened and what should they do to the people. and he tried to switch over like it was the president's fault, asking do you think the president has done enough? it is the same stuff with them. these people are grieving a loss and they are trying to say it's the president's fault. i don't understand fox news. are a bunch of haters. we are trying to bring the country together. i just don't get them. they gave busgh a pass, running this country into the ground. it is a shame how they act all the time. --t: on our facebook page

facebook.com/c-span. william, republican caller from tennessee. caller: good morning. i'm wondering about these hate groups that you hear on the radio. that there are more

of them than there have ever been before. host: what kind of hate groups, american, anti-american hate groups? caller: yes, pretty much. host: do you think that type of group is possibly responsible? caller: you have to kind of ask. there's one show i listen to on [indiscernible]. host: david, here is the washington post this morning. william, i'm sorry. let me read this from the post.

he has been cleared and is no longer a person of interest. caller: ok, that's what i was asking about. maine.avid in limestone, caller: i am calling concerning comments made about how the bombs are made. i think that was a little bit too much information. why do people need to know how the bombs were made? host: why do you think so?

caller: it would possibly give people ideas. i would look for a run on pressure cookers in the hardware stores. there are people who are angry or sick of mind. why give them ideas? it's not necessary information. the fact that it hurt people is the information they need to talk about. it is too much information. to knowon't need how to make the things. host: a republican in texas serving as the house homeland security chairman said in the washington post --

tennessee, republican. caller: hi. circumstances from the bombings on monday, and even the recent school shooting in newtown, we really need to begin to clamp down on legislation, because things are getting out of hand. we don't know what is going to happen next. host: what kind of legislation? caller: for example, with a gun laws, in the party's bickering back and forth, they need to come to agreement on tougher gun laws. --re needs to being better to be better legislation for better security for events like

marathons and other type of events where the general public is gathered. host: you think we need to start spending more money, the federal government, on gatherings, to have security at these types of gatherings? caller: i don't know if spending more money is the answer, but enacthe state's can legislation that would be even tougher than what the federal government can do. it is where the states need to step in even more. sun: this is the baltimore opinion page. reaction, mike? caller: i don't think abandoning events like that is the answer, but there needs to be tougher

security, maybe even perhaps having people go through certain areas to get checked even before they are allowed to enter those areas like that. people withn scanners and stuff just to make sure there is nothing that can be used as a weapon of any type. host: all right. this is the "washington times" this morning. so president obama is headed to

boston tomorrow. the washington post has this --

athens, ohio, ain democrat. caller: the situation in boston is really horrific and the people who did it clearly need to be brought to justice. msnbc i heard someone talking about who we are as a people and he gave amazing

examples of nurses and other citizens who came to the aid of the injured and those killed in the situation. he w spoke ho we are not. he said we are not people who maim people. clearly that the case in the u.s. but when we look at ourselves -- and i've not making any excuses for this type of horrific behavior, but we have to reflect upon our own behavior overseas.ou peoplenes, the innocent who have died in iraq because unnecessary war. i'm not saying the people in boston are tied to this, but they could be. we do bomb and maim innocent people.

i'm not saying this is the case, that this is retaliation, but it is possible. we need to look at our own do overseas aswe well as who did this, and they need to be brought to justice, but so do we. host: mike in massachusetts, independence. caller: my prayers and thoughts to the families and victims at the boston marathon. and kudos to the investigators for the job i am sure they will be doing and getting to the bottom of this. i just want to say i agree with one of the callers in regard to the media. it is the old saying that if you want to get information to do getbad, just -- produce thething bad, just watch news channels. there is too much information

released. by information released investigators or journalists. some of the people listening who may not have thought before on how to do something, then they can learn by watching tv. giveniscretion should be and some common sense should be looked at as to the information being provided. in?: can i jumpe fbi officials are putting this information out in hopes that somebody comes forward and says i saw something that you are talking about. post, thee new york front page. isolated a picture. in all the photographs around the finish line that were taken by security cameras or people with their self phones, the fbi

wants that information, the videos, the photographs. -- with cell phones. so here's the new york post showing what the fbi has told them is something they are looking for. caller: correct. i am not disputing that. things of that nature just out in the open. somebody wants to do something bad, just a generalization of what is used. on my way to work this morning on one of the news stations they were talking about a memory board thfrom a cellphone, where they got their information, and the intricacies of what may have detonated the device. g it wast beyond sayin in a backpack. anyone can buy a backpack or

whatever. i am saying the intricacies in regard to how the device possibly was detonated and things of that nature. of this.ever think certain information like that, the details. host: what if this person or persons bought certain material from a store and the storekeeper hears about this material and thinks i might have sold this to a person? caller: i fully understand that, but that is why you have investigations, why you have forensics, certain things we are not privy to that investigators use to track down certain things. it is a fine line. sometimes i just feel too much information is given in to much detail where

the average person does not think of it until it is put in front of them. if you have someone border line thinking of doing something, it gives them another alternative. host: let me leave it there. here are headlines from around the world. here's a german paper in duesseldorf. the headline in their newspaper this morning as well about the boston bombing. and then here's a newspaper in attack.on the boston that there headline. also, this is a newspaper in turkey this morning. you can see they have a picture. these are from yesterday, excuse me. not from today. this is how some of the newspapers around world framed the situation. also, this is from brazil.

you can see the picture. ryan in key west, florida, republican. caller: hi. no one has been talking about the militias, and they are very angry. i'm associated with a militia. they are very angry about the second amendment gun-control issue. i believe this could been a malicious attack because they are very angry right now -- militia attacl. they will go through any means to get their message out. host: what is the group you belong to? caller: militia mindset. their goal is to defend the country by any means from government intrusion and infringement on our rights.

there are police patrolling the streets now with assault weapons. in the declaration of independence, no standing army should be in the cities. amassinglitias are weapons of assault rifles, ammunition, and now they want to take it down to a clip that only holds 10 rounds. they are very angry about that. you think someone or your group could do something like best? caller: for sure. i don't endorse it at all. my heart goes out to the people in boston. but i definitely think it could be done by the militias for sure. the gun bill legislation that is supposed to be coming up today or tomorrow about gun-control -- host: it is on the floor the senate this week. caller: it could be done easily by the militias. i am in training.

we train every week. the militias around the country are ready for war. host: what are you training for? caller: training to pay back this government. if they infringe on fundamental rights, the second amendment, there will be war on the streets. ourll on you to aunt in ideology -- and in our ideology, on shortwave radio. host: what type of training? caller: endurance training, weapons training. i will not get into an explosive training, but it is going down. i have not heard anybody say anything about militias. there are so many militias in this country right now that are ready for war, if things go bad, and i have not heard anything about it. host: how old are you and when

did you join? caller: 26. joined a few years ago. host: what made you join groups? roup?e g caller: when the islamic terrorist started bombing us, when 9/11 happened. i just believe in it. i'm a patriot. i have the constitution next to my bed and a bible. i believe in every amendment, every right we should have and that should not be infringed upon. i read the constitution once a week. i believe that no infringement should be made upon our constitution and that's it. in poughkeepsie, new york, a democrat. caller: wow. thank you for c-span3 for the former caller, you need help.

go see a therapist. i am at a loss for words at this point. you know, it would be very interesting -- host: do you believe that caller? a wild well, if he has imagination, he still needs help, calling program like this. see a therapist, son. i was going to comment that it would be very interesting to see al qaedas some sort of type of group that is involved in this? ithink the prosecution of with theollow-up isice and so on, the fbi,

the appropriate way to investigate and pursue and bring to justice whoever is responsible. the peoplees out to lives, theople lost families. fortunately, i was in new york city at the time of september 11, and fortunately, this did not do as much damage that we had during 9/11. it is still an awful experience for the people who were there. and the people injured. anyway, i'm at a loss for words after the previous phone call. host: we will leave it there. we will keep taking your comments this morning, getting your reaction to the boston bombings, more than 24 hours later. no suspects yet, nobody claiming

responsibility either. we will give you more details from newspapers. in other news, the control is the issue on the senate floor this week. alexander ballston is joining us on the phone, senior staff writer with the hill newspaper. -- alexander bolton. reidheadline is "senator rolls the dice on the gun bill." guest: there will be a number of amendments today, ninth amendment voted on starting at 4:00 p.m., beginning with the joe manchin and pat toomey proposal, which is bipartisan, to expand background checks. it is supported by pat toomey, rating from the nra, very conservative republican senator. that has not even done much to bring republican support to the

bill. and expanding background checks is the centerpiece of president violence agenda. it is the one the democratic leaders are really pushing for because they thought it had the best chance of passing. the other pillars of obama's agenda, the renewal of the assault weapons ban and a limit on high capacity ammunition clips, those will also received zero votes today. from the start of the gun- control debate, there were given little chance of passing. andbig hopes for obama senator schumer and members of the democratic leadership, expanded background checks, called the sweet spot of any gun-control deal, but coming to the floor today. every reed does not appear to have the votes. that's why he's going the dice. he's putting it host: on the floor 4:00 p.m. on c-span2, for our viewers interested in watching the vote. a series of nine votes. which senators are

they targeting for votes? unfortunately, the pool of targets is really shrinking. there were looking at the republicans who last week voted to move to the gun bill. there was a republican filibuster of the gun violence legislation. a number of republicans defected. those were the guys on the target list. there were targeted by manchin also merits against -- also by mayors. saxby chambliss of georgia as well. yesterdayr came out to say he would vote against the bill -- against the amendment, rather. bob corker of tennessee was another person on the target list. he also came out against it.

, thee democratic side targets were mary andrew luck of louisiana, who is still looking at the bill. reiu.ry land isk pryor of arkansas another tough one, looking at reelection last year. as well as mark begich of alaska. both of them have held out. as toomey went so far exempting rural residents who don't live within a convenient driving distance of a gun dealer from the background proposal. but they have said that will not seal the deal for them. this that act came when senator jeff flake posted on his facebook page that he was going to be a no vote. is there an alternative to pat

plan?uyy's n?me have talked about cobur guest: that's a likely alternative. what senator coburn is proposing is that gun buyers would be allowed to perform a background check on themselves. they were unable to print out a receipt from the government portal and give that to the cellar and the seller can use the pin number on the receipt to check to see that the background check the place. argument is the only thing we can get accomplished is a change in the law that would give gun sellers the peace of mind that they are not selling to a criminal or someone with mental problems. but gun-control advocates say

the problem with this proposal is it does not take into account bad actors. there's no way for law enforcement to track down people who are selling guns illegally or who are not performing backgroundc checks background checks. coburn says the atf could perform stings for people who don't perform background checks. does thet impact washington post editorial this morning one john mccain have on this debate, saying -- what impact does this new washington post/abc news poll the that shows most back

legislation? does this have any impact on today's votes? guest: i saw that there were big crush ads on washington post's web sites a and 80% of background checks will have no effect on crime. you should tell your senators to listen to the police and not to michael bloomberg. the most prominent thing on the washington post website was this ad against background checks. i don't think the washington post editorial board is going to in thewhole lot of sway senate debate. host: let's move on to immigration. that is also a poll in today's newspaper showing a majority of americans support immigration laws as well. where do we stand on a proposal by the gang of eight in the senate? guest: the legislation was just released late last night. the gangterday mordant

of eight put out this 16 page summary detailing what they have agreed to. it is long and complicated. it is going to take a while four groups to pour through the details. republican senators like to the grassley, a pivotal figure, the ranking republican on the judiciary committee, he is holding off comment until he takes a look at the legislation. but it is something the president has praised. he says it is largely consistent with what he wants to do. it really runs the gamut. host: this praise coming after he met with john mccain and and charles schumer, part of the gang of eight, met with him at the white house yesterday. guest: yes. this bill is comprehensive. that's what the authors were looking for. to address or security, put the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in this country on a path to citizenship, set up a

new point system for visas, creates a new guest worker afor low-reating a w "w" visa orkers -- a w program for low-skilled workers, established caps strictly, and they would travel visas leaving the country. the problem is people overstate tourist visas and nothing happens. the bill would establish a system at airports and seaports to track who is leaving so we get a better sense of it. if it would tighten security along the southwestern border. it would require an 90% effectiveness rate in terms of apprehension in the high risk sectors. those are areas where you have 30,000 people being apprehended for illegal entry each year.

what conservatives are saying is this bill does not really secure the border, because it does not require a fence to be built along the entire length of the border. i think what you will see in the next couple days is conservative critics looking closely at these border security requirements that have to be met before the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country are given provisional legal status and then 10 years down the road given permanent legal status. host: bank you for your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: let me give you some other newspaper headlines, articles about the immigration debate. the washington post has -- lot of details in this

legislation. a long piece of legislation is what people are saying as well. the new york times is weighing in on the immigration proposal, saying -- that there are better paid. the opinion in "usa today" -- finally, a wall street journal this morning with their editorial --

that the wall street journal editorial. lamar smith, a key player on the house side, on the judiciary committee, the chairman - excuse me, the former chairman of the house judiciary committee and served on the immigration subcommittee. that's in the washington times this morning. and the washington post front page -- also, a national section of the

new york times has the back story on how the gang of eight came together. it shows lindsay gramm saying he was leery about chuck schumer. talked-about how marco rubio joined, and so on. that's the new york times this morning. back to your phone calls about the boston bombing, getting your reaction this morning. ben in st. paul, minnesota, a democrat. thanks for waiting. had specific things to say and then the militia caller called. i think he got everyone's attention for the wrong reason. one of our big problems as

americans, we overlook dissenting arguments that are not ours and brush them off as wild or crazy instead of listening to what they have to say. that young man was obviously very passionate about what he felt. americans start getting into more discussions instead of find blame with al qaeda militia groups, and just look at what each other are saying, and we might not agree, like gay marriage and all those things. just because we don't agree, does not mean we can infringe on other people's opinions. thank you. host: rob in stockton,

california, republican. caller: the sad thing is americans have been sold to sleep thinking the federal government can take care of everything, make a new law and everything will be just fine. -- lulled to sleep. we make a new gun control law and everybody will be safe. you go back in history. man has been killing man. they are hoping this is probably violence versus international violence. the radical muslims have sworn to do exactly this, to disrupt our american way of life and to kill and destroy us. the bottom line is americans have the right to protect ourselves. it is wrong for the senate to try to take away our gun rights. host: mike in arkansas,

independent. caller: i believe what that guy just said, that we have a right to the second amendment. it's in the constitution. that right of combat, the mainstream media, to tie this to gun-control. as far as the boy from florida, i don't think he is militia. i think he's just calling in to pretend that he was, because he he could not really explain why he joined. , ihe was really a militia don't think he would be calling and saying that, if he had a goal or whatever. anyway, i feel sorry for the victims. i think it is a little premature to try to tie it into

right-wing white supremacist or anything like that. in texas, republican. caller: my prayers go out to the people in boston. my prayers go out to them. host: we are listening. caller: i would just like to say what happened in boston has a lot to do with what is going on with the borders. 12 millioning to let illegal immigrants in our country. one out of those 12 million could be another one like this. we need to think about that for shore. host: immigration, gun control, those are debates that are happening on capitol hill today. also, some other things happening on capitol hill, some

programming notes for you of events we will be covering. the senate homeland security government affairs committee but will hear about the president's budget for homeland security. that will be live in a cry a.m. on c-span3. we are covering the house foreign affairs committee, which will be examining the president's proposal for the state department. health and human services department budget as well before the senate finance committee. the senate armed services committee will do an overview of defense authorization. chuck hagel will be at that as well as general martin dempsey, at that hearing. the house oversight and government reform committee is having a hearing on postal service insolvency. to find out when and where all of that will be airing, go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. chuck in massachusetts, a democrat. thought.ust a

when you consider how 9/11 and brought the american public together, the last thing al qaeda would want to do would be to recreate that feeling of united ness. they like us divided. was shown as ait relatively easy, but they did in boston yesterday. like hawk-eye wanted to do something like that, they could do it relatively easily. i don't think they want to do it, because it would backfire on them. that's my thought. host: all right. that's the point of the show, to get everybody stopped and a variety of opinions this morning. one more story to give you

before we go on to talk to two members of congress. poisonlope containing mailed to the senate this office, the headline in the baltimore sun this morning. it's an actor who was our guest here on monday, a mississippi republican. an envelope to him tested positive for poison. post offices on the house and senate side were closed down. it will go through a decontamination procedures. ricin can be deadly in small amounts according to the cdc in. that headline in many of the newspapers this morning. benan talk to senator cardin, around 8:30 eastern time. . we will talk about issues on capitol hill, tighter gun control laws as well as

immigration, the budget, and the boston bombing. , louie texas republican gohmert, boston, and the prospects for gun legislation in the house, and immigration. we will be right back. >> ♪ [video clip] >> one of the questions i amassed a lot is why did we do this? the shorter answer is the monitress such a significant shipwreck, so important not only to our national heritage but naval history around the world that it needs to be preserved and that the story would be passed on to future generations. whatore complex answer is the mission of the monitor still has yet unfulfilled and what facilities like the mariners museum and the education and outreach and conservation efforts, what those things are continuing to do today to help us understand our relationship

with the sea and with our maritime past. >> we are in the clean lab. treatment of artifacts is carried out, ,ncluding chemical coating constructing support mounts for objects, doing additional cleaning in a dry and stable environment. the ultimate goal is to put these into the gallery and be able to share is much of the operatedhow the pumps and how they were made. we know that the one in front of us up until almost the last moment was working hard to try to keep the ship from sinking. unfortunately, when the water pushes out the oilers -- ump stoppede p

moving. >> i think of the crew of the monitor and the things they experienced and the struggles that they undertook to preserve the union and how ironic is that today, 151 years later, they are still serving the nation but in a very different way and in ways they could never imagine, for helping us understand marine conservation and about our past and helping us move forward and learn from the lessons of the past. to, looking at the history and literary life of virginia beach, virginia, including more from the mariners' museum, saturday and noon eastern on c-span2. and sunday at 5:00 on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. texaswe're back with republican louie gohmert, a member of the judiciary committee.

thanks for being here. guest: nice to be here. host: we begin with the boston bombings, get your reaction. guest: it was tragic. any time fellow americans suffer like that, it brings the rest of the country together. 9/12 so vividly. i was a judge back then. the day after the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center there were no hyphenated americans that day. there were no european americans or african americans. everybody was american. it was such a warm time. people were around squares like in my hometown, held hands and sang together and prayed together. there was some of that this week as the attack happened in boston. there was bostonian saying this was not just on boston, this was on america.

and all of us should be outraged and doing everything we can to help them. host: how should any suspects be handled in this? guest: they did have a person of interest. if you go back, historically a, sometimes they were right on and sometimes it is like a richard jewell. but mistakes have been made in the past. some say this guy had nothing to do with it. i don't think you can make that judgment right now. having been a judge, prosecutor, chief justice, and have been -- having been court- appointed to appeal a death sentence, i know that the best thing they can do is be very thorough, not skip any clothes. if they do, even if they believe they have the right person or persons, if they have skip over some investigation of the things

that came up, those will be used in a trial to raise reasonable doubt, why did you not do this or check on that? that's the last thing they want. they want to be very thorough. i've been very impressed with how they have been going about the investigation. out don't want to find somebody had a perfect video or snapshot down the road. they are asking for those things now. but don't jump to any conclusions or against anybody they had picked upon or initially suspected. host: you sound skeptical that reports are today that the fbi has cleared the saudi national, and he's no longer a person of interest. guest: i just think we should be in a wait-and-see mode. they said that richard jewell was the person of interest. i think that is too early to completely exonerate anybody, especially someone who was

reported to have said the things he did. i think we need to be in a wait- and-see mode. they need to be very thorough. whether it is or is not this involved, let's say hypothetically he may have been involved, it is so much better if they get down the road and they say, we did not just concentrate on this person, we wanted to make sure that we looked at all the possibilities. and so, i think what they are doing it the appropriate way to approach it. just don't fail to pursue any close. some of them may lead back to this guy and maybe they don't, but keep an open mind, pursue every nickel and we will see where it leads. host: senator saxby chambliss was quoted in the paper as is starting that it

to look like a domestic terrorist act. what you make of that? he did not point to any specific evidence. you that he'slls an honest guy. it tells you what was presented to him made him think it may be a domestic situation. but we need to wait and see. host: what does that mean for prosecuting and any sort of trial? domestic versus a foreign terrorist attack? guest: if it ends up being an american citizen involved, whether it is a member of al qaeda or a lone wolf or an individual radicalized person or a nut case like the unabomber or someone more conservative like in oklahoma city, it just means they need to be thorough. regardless, since it

was on american soil, it normally kicks in article 3 court situation. massachusettse has the death penalty. we have the death penalty under federal law. i have heard on tv many bostonian some say we want this person or persons to get the death penalty. i also would encourage people not to jump the gun on that. has had to listen to arguments on whether or not , people all over are saying we want this defendant to get the death penalty, they are raising the risk that the case will have to be moved to somewhere else where it has not been prejudged. i think right now the public at large needs to concentrate on doing everything we can for the people in boston, the victims and their families. in the meantime, law-

enforcement, homeland security really need to be following every clue they've got. host: louie gohmert is on the judiciary committee and is the vice chair appeals homeland security subcommittee. talk more about your experience as a judge. guest: thousands of cases have come through my court. felony cases up to and including death penalty cases. as i mentioned, i was appointed to appeal a death penalty case. as i told the highest court in texas, i believe in the death penalty. it is appropriate in some cases. we may have to make absolutely certain that all the procedural safeguards are being followed in handled, but i were not. i was effective in getting it reversed. host: the gang of eight in the senate have put forth an immigration proposal. there's a gang of eight in the house as well working on this.

what do you make of what you average so far about the gang of eight and the senator gang of eight proposal? inst: i have good friends the house gang of eight and also in the senate to gang of eight. i know that they mean well. when the president of the united states -- the big trigger is when the president gets around finally securing the 90% or highering capacity of actually having secured to the border, then it triggers other things. but the problem is you look at what they're offering, they are saying we will give legal status here. it talks about the we will construct fences, we will do these things. we are doing a lot of things we should do, but they are going to register people that came here illegally and then give them

legal status. and then after the border supposedly is secured, they will take further steps -- further legal status. the problem is this has been promised since 1986. i never met ronald reagan. i really liked him, but he dropped the ball on securing the border. he made sure we had the amnesty that was promised, just liked legal status, which is a bit of amnesty, whatever you want to call it. but the president should not be in the position of saying you give me all this immigration reform, give me basically amnesty for all these people, millions that are here that came here illegally and then i will get around to police securing the border. he took an oath. he has an obligation to secure the border. , thought andthough

pears went for the victims' and families in boston was we have seen this in israel. after israel had to suffer the slings and arrows and deaths and maimings for so long, i've been in the coffee shops over there. oh, this is a coffee shop where a bomber killed people. and this is a park bench where people were killed and this is where a bus will up and this is where the playground was where a radical islamist watch -- walked from his apartment and blew up kids at the playground. finally the israeli people said this is enough. they built a fence and the rest is a wall to prevent snipers kids.elling their they finally stopped the domestic violence from people that wanted to destroy them. i am concerned we need to do

that as well. host: steve king of iowa made similar remarks yesterday, immigration to what happened in boston. guest: it remains to be seen whether it is domestic or foreign. but these are generally copycat things, whether it was domestic or foreign, and we have to make sure that people are here legally. cameof the 9/11 hijackers legally and overstayed their visa. respond too you people that say you are making political hay? guest: i do not question people who say that, but you have to understand that we want america to continue to be a haven for

people that want to live free. when you have the greatest liberties, you will draw people that want to destroy you. immigrants,u saying the majority of immigrants are people coming in here to harm america? guest: gosh, no. the paramedic, the all seeing one wasod, out of many our strength. being a melting pot has helped make us the greatest country in the world. we need immigration. we want immigration. my office helps people that want to bring family in legally, but we try to help them legally. i have people that say it took

me 10 years, and now it looks like i should have come in illegally because i would have been legalized. we owe it to the immigrants that had come in legally to make sure they are safe. we know al qaeda has camps on the mexican border. we have people that are trained to act hispanic when they are radical islamists. we know these things are happening. it is insane not to protect ourselves to make sure that people have the freedoms we have. quoting douglas holtz aiken, they talk about the windfall. guest: he is a friend and a brilliant guy, i am not sure if he was hired to --

host: listen to what he had to say in "the wall street journal ." perrm would raise gdp capita by over 1500. , ist: with all due respect think he is wrong. when you look at projections of how much it is going to cost, and this administration that said if you like your health you can keep it, that obamacare will not include abortion, illegal immigrants will not get care -- all of those things turned out to not be true, and it is the same with this. a lot of promises will not be met because it will cost american gilly if we legalize people. , you areublican caller on the air with tungsten louie

gohmert. representative gohmert, i wanted to tell you you have quickly become my most favorite representative. guest: you are the one. thank you very much. just drove through your town. guest: east texas? caller: yes, marshall. regarding immigration, i agree 100%. i live in southern california. i have seen what it does to our town. i find it highly insulting that the government has tried to sell us on the fact that we need more workers when we have more than 20 million out of work. we are going to bring in workers and pay americans not to

work. i find that highly insulting. you are right. these people, bless their hearts -- i understand they are coming for a better life, but what will that do to our welfare system question mark they will automatically be -- welfare system? they will automatically be eligible. guest: there are people right now. sign are people paid to them up for food stamps and get them on federal programs. host: under the proposal by the gang of eight, these people would not be eligible for federal benefits while they are waiting, which could take 10 to 13 years. guest: that is what has been said. right now, the law is a are not allowed to get the welfare and programs they are getting, yet we are doing it anyway and this

administration has led the way in signing him more people that came in illegally that are not eligible and signing them up anyway. what i would like to see is a good-faith effort to follow the law and enforce the law as it is because until that is done, just changing the law is not going to do anything. host: lidia, upper marlboro, maryland. democratic caller. caller: representative gohmert, you are not one of my favorite representatives. you are in washington, d.c., and you do not know anything more about what is going on in boston than i do. the fbi and the boston police commissioner said this young student that went to the treated for burns had been totally eliminated. making are sitting here sly comments about suspicious

activities paired what suspicious activities that he had besides getting treated for burns? thank you, lidia, and with deference to your comments , you obviously do not know who i have talked to, so you are being judgmental without having the facts of who i have talked to and what i know, but i will continue to insist that what i know from the experience of being involved in thousands of felony cases is you do not ever completely rule out anything until all of the evidence is in. i think it is a responsible thing not to say right now we have the person -- maybe it is, maybe it is not. i am not saying this is the person that did it. i am saying the proper approach is to weight to jump to any conclusions, whether there is or isn't any involvement from the

saudi student. it is something judgment needs to be reserved on. host: who have you been talking to, what sort of information have you been given? guest: i have a lot of people that give me information because they know they can trust me and they have seen that even if there is some left-wing person on cnn, i will not give up .ources, information host: sources in the fbi? guest: i am not going to give sources. i am mainly going on my experience when i say just wait for any rush to judgment for anyone, not just the saudi student. host: a caller brings up how members of congress get information. are you getting briefed? guest: my experience with this administration is when i have

gone to classified rates -- briefs with this administration, i walk out with everyone saying this was a waste of time, i find out more on c-span or on the internet or from people that were involved. anyway, i have not been a fan of this administration's briefings. portsmouth, in virginia, republican caller. caller: how are you? guest: i think i am ok, sherry. founding speak to the of this country and i would like to see current representatives and senators live up to the vision and principles of this nation. in 1776 we had a great experiment of democracy launched and it was quite

exciting. it had to be reaffirmed in 1865. they preserved it in the 1930's after the great depression. now we are at a tipping point of visiond people and courage able to lead this country and i do not see that happening. in 1776 it did not happen that way either. what happened then is only meant who owned property where allowed to vote. the country has been built on a great vision but it takes us on the ground to recognize those visions because of what was done in 1776 with the constitution, in terms of preserving slavery, that is what led to the civil war. guest: great point,, and i could not agree more with you. about 130 supported the revolution, and the same amount played both sides.

it is one of the great ironies that a guy as brilliant as thomas jefferson could write the declaration of independence, include a provision for condemning king george for ever letting slavery take place, but he had this blind spot because he continued to have slavery. for the constitution to mean what it said -- and as lincoln said and it is inscribed at the lincoln memorial, if it be god's will that every drop of blood drawn by the masters/be drawn by sword we must conclude that they are righteous together. we must constantly work to improve this experiment in democracy. as benjamin franklin said, you have a republic, madam, if you

can keep it. have mistakingly thought that martin luther king jr. merely helped african-americans, minorities in america. actually, he freed up a little white boy like me, who is a christian, to treat brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. he did a great thing for all of america. it took that kind of vision -- the revolution, the civil war, the world wars, especially world war ii, and then on up to the civil rights movement to get where we should be. wants people she of courage, i can tell you personally my skin has gotten much, much thicker, but it still hurts a little bit when people that did not have my scores to

get in school call me a moron and these ridiculous names and load up the internet with ridiculous allegations that are not true at all. so, that is not necessarily courage, not the kind that the great heroes of america had, but it is a confidence in knowing who i am and knowing where this country needs to be if it will continue for another 100 years. host: dolores, massachusetts. independent caller. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my question is regarding immigration. -- it seems like immigration problems, once people come here illegally, they not only get the benefits --

and i understand why they are coming, to benefit their family , but some of them are coming to destroy america as we once knew it -- our traditions, our religions, whatever. they are not just coming from mexico. they are coming from all over the world. guest: that is right. thank you, dolores. you are exactly right. some people and thank god that the vast majority of people emigrating into america just want the freedoms and opportunities that our constitution guarantees. i am very grateful for that. it breaks my heart, though, that we have laws in place and some people come in for jobs to help their families, and then we have people working for the government come to them and say

let us give you some welfare. itl, we are not eligible -- is fine, go ahead. there were people told it was ok to sign up for a voter registration card even though you are here illegally because the attorney general has sued texas and they will not be able to force the photo id. those are problems. people come with the right motivation and then there lord into things that are not part of their nation. host: what about the provisions in the gang of eight. $17 billion total for the price tag. --t will go to new immigrant immigration enforcement efforts.

is this enough? is that adequate? guest: those are fantastic starts. they are exactly right. i am telling you, if this administration would just do their job and secure our borders, not close them, because we need immigration to continue legally, but just do their job, we can have an agreement like that. what we have heard from border patrol is just talking about legalization of people here illegally has caused a mass , ofux, two were three times people coming in. we have anecdotal stories of people saying you are arresting me, but obama will let me go. we have the human tragedy because of the magnet that this kind of talk has caused, people

are dying in greater numbers than ever coming across desert areas, brushed areas of texas and it will get worse if we do not secure the border first. those are very good ideas. do them. one thing that most people are until aid -- aware of good friend from southern california told me that the largest number of prosecutions are coming from people that are deported and coming back in illegally. it is 39.4% of the prosecutions arehis administration against people who are deported and come back you legally. think about the billions of dollars -- comeback illegally. of about the billions

dollars that would be saved on securing the border. host: there is a story from "the wall street journal" that on the $17 billion cost -- lawmakers say fines and fees can cover the total. tom, democratic caller. caller: good morning. good morning, guest. of dollars that would be saved on securing the borderno offense. my daughter, a little 100 pound, five foot something, is getting ready to take a test for the legal right to operate a two ,on vehicle that could kill right? it is a car. she will go to one of the state policeman that we respect and she will take her past, he will say ok and she will register at .endot we do that with a car. i do not understand why we cannot do that with guns.

he cannot get a background check at these gun shows and there are people i would not let a decent my dog, but -- babysit my dog, but we are saying go ahead and buy guns? guest: what was the last gun show you went to? host: i'm sorry, i let him go. guest: comics a good point, that it has been a clear -- tom makes a good point that it has been clear when the president talks about 47 -- 40% of people getting the guns without a background check, it is not true. a tiny percentage does not. you doway, in texas, not even have to go to the state trooper and have the driving test anymore. i thought it was a good idea. anyway, the concern that people have is are we developing a national registry for guns.

there needs to be a safeguard that that is not what is being developed. when it comes to the horrible, just evil that was perpetrated on these precious children in sandy hook and legislation that people are holding sandy hook up and saying they demand this be done for the sake of these children and those heroic teachers and administrators, there ought to be one question on any legislation -- would it have made a difference at sandy hook? would it have made a difference in colorado? if they are proposing the legislation in the name of these fallen victims, then it should have prevented what happened, and the people proposing the legislation right now admit this would not have changed anything at sandy hook. host: the senate compromise on

background checks include sales on the internet. "the new york times" writes that similar websites function as unregulated stores where the essential anonymity of the internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them. it goes on to say that "gun control advocates argue that such background checks would prevent shootings like that of zina emma whose husband was killed even though a restraining order barred him from having guns." guest: we do not need people with -- host: it has to prevent mass killings? guest: what i am saying it is disingenuous to say we must do

this in the name of the fallen, the dead at sandy hook and what has been proposed would not change what happened there. with regard to this one incident, and i'm not familiar with that situation, but what i a hugel you is that percentage of people who buy guns have background checks, even as -- at the gun shows. if they are federally licensed firearms sales people -- even the fast and furious, those gun sellers did not want to sell guns to the people that the federal justice department demanded that they sell to because it is their job. they could lose their license if they sell to somebody that is not supposed to have a firearm. they are very careful about that. online sales is something we ought to look at, and i would

imagine -- i have not heard anybody offer a bill that dealt with online purchases. i bet we could reach an agreement on that quickly. that is a good issue and a good point. host: "the new york times" piece is about gun sales, with trying to buy the gun, and testing the system. that is the front page. maine.in lebanon, republican caller. caller: i hope everything is going well. it is a beautiful day. i have a few comments about immigration. our government does not seem to want to enforce any of the immigration laws that we have now. there are a lot of federal laws in place. these people are felons the minute they cross the border. i see signs where they say we do not want to be second class citizens. that is the problem.

they are noncitizens. they are felons. if we give them amnesty or a path to citizenship, will we do that for every felon in the country? host: congressman? guest: it is an excellent question, cliff. the problem with some of the things being proposed and carried out -- very basic common sense, even in washington, you do not reward inappropriate conduct. it incident of eyes is inappropriate conduct and you do not -- it incentivizes inappropriate conduct and that is too often what we have been doing, utilizing the people that want to do things populate. wefar as immigration reform, desperately need immigration reform. that thirdgeous

world countries do a better job than we do in processing these a request. you comeld be 90 days, in or you do not. that is not what happens. payshould not have to several thousand dollars, as many hispanic friends and i know that immigrated did to get someone to help them -- they should not have to pay a dime. they should fill it out by themselves, make the application. we ought to do that. host: michael, prescott, arizona. independent caller. caller: representative gohmert, it is a pleasure to talk to you and you are my favorite representative. i wait for you every evening to have your speeches on the floor. guest: that sounds masochistic. caller: the country was founded by christians.

i wait for you every evening. since you are on the judiciary committee, how in the world is eric holder still on there? he is the biggest straw purchaser there is, and as far as doing that civil rights thing with the black panthers in philadelphia, from that day on that man was no good in my book. bin laden has one in my concern. he has taken our rights. the patriot act, give me back my rights, please and start following the constitution. guest: thank you, michael and thank you, greta. very good point. when it came to a and furious, i am still completely aghast

that the justice department would not demand answers. one eric holder came before us -- when eric holder came before us and said we do not know what happened -- if i am head of the justice department and somebody in my department made gun sellers sell to people that knew they would go to drug cartels or in criminal hands, i would be outraged. step down, the attorney general? yes, he should have, and to me it is not a partisan issue. many have said it is never smart to go after the fbi director or the attorney general, when when we found out that the fbi director when george bush was president, under robert mueller, there were intentionally thousands of abuses of fbi agents writing national

fishing letters on expeditions. i thought the fbi director have steppedould down. he should not have been there when obama came in. that was so egregious. also, with eric holder, i have asked in in the hearing for the documentation that his justice the peoplegave to that financially supported terrorism -- please give them to congress. he said he does not think they would like to do that -- they could do that. terrorists and they would not give it to members of congress. it is an outrage. forward with a subpoena to get documents eric holder would not furnish her host: we are running out of time, but i want to get in gary in massachusetts.

democratic caller. .aller: ima radio host i have quick questions. ae united states is christian country -- why are we funding but not feeding our own people? we cannot afford to do that, but we cannot afford money in social security. there are a lot of things going on. host: gary, we will take that point, about a christian country funding wars, not feeding people. guest: the president says we are not a christian country right now, and i will not debate that, but i know of the 56 signers of one-thirdtution, were ministers. some were deist. washington where -- was not a

deist. benjamin franklin said that god governs in the affairs of man. that is not a deist. gary makes a good point. for example, i have had a bill in each congress that simply says any country that votes against the u.s. position more than half the time should not get a dime of assistance, and here we are sending money to egypt. they are going after coptic christians, jews, moderate fwslims -- i have had at d airport, people come up to me and say "i am egyptian, please stop helping the muslim brotherhood in the egypt." stop helping the wrong guys. gary is right. we have under-funded social security and we have to fix

that for the sake of future generations and i hope we can do that in the near future. host: congressman, thank you for being on "washington journal." humming up we will go to the other side of the aisle to talk to ben cardin. then, later, the legacy of the late prime minister margaret thatcher, whose funeral we covered really early this morning. we will talk to david rennie of "the economist" about her legacy, but first an update from c-span radio. >> former secretary of state condoleezza rice in remarks on "cbs this morning" said terrorist attacks like the one at the boston marathon present presidents with a leadership dilemma saying that president obama wants to reassure people the government is on the trail, but he has to be careful not to give out information

prematurely to be sure not to tip off the people responsible. condoleezza rice was president george w. bush's national security advisor when terrorist attack the world trade center and the pentagon on september 11, 2001. a job program to help veterans reenter the workforce has more than 60,000 empty slots. it is geared to unemployed veterans between the age of 35 and 60 and covers up to one year of tuition for training. an update on the race for an open south carolina congressional seat. the former wife of the former governor mark sanford filed a complaint accusing him of trespassing at their home in violation of a divorce settlement. a judge has ordered the republican candidate to appear before heing two days

faces an election for the congressional seat. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> she came into the white house as a 47-year-old lady who it was well-known aided politics. at the deeply depressed death of her last surviving son , especially under the terrible circumstances in which he died. she did not have many friends, but she did have a wonderful family that kept her going and there always seemed to be someone there. she was a very intellectual woman, highly educated.

it seemed wasted in some ways. >> our conversation on jane pierce, wife of the 14th president franklin pierce is on our website for "first ladies." .washington journal" continues host: we are back with senator ben cardin, democrat of ireland on the senate foreign affairs committee, -- democrat of maryland on the senate foreign affairs committee. let's begin with the situation in boston. when did you find out and what was your reaction? guest: i happen to be walking past a television monitor and saw the breaking news and was shocked and i knew right away this was a terrorist episode. i saw the damage that was done

in knew that a lot of people would be hurt had it is just -- hurt. it is just traffic. we were briefed on it. the law enforcement is doing their work, and i think they minimized the damage and have also conducted the investigation the way it needed to be to preserve evidence and follow every lead. host: what did you find out in the briefing? what stood out? guest: the damage that was done , the people that lost their suffering -- our prayers go out to the families of the victims. it was horrific and it happened at a very populous event. it struck us where we are the most vulnerable, because we are an open society, but clearly the briefing showed the responders did the right thing. host: what did you hear about the type of bomb?

lip of a rusher cooker was found on a roof. what were you told about the bomb? guest: they have a lot of evidence. they are putting it together and they will be able to determine the type of bomb it was, the ingredients of the bomb that will give them certain leads as for where to look for suppliers or the type of individuals that would be doing this type of work. there is evidence and they are following the evidence. host: i want to move on to immigration reform -- the gang of eight would forward their proposal. what do you make of it? guest: i think it is big news. fournly are there democrats and four republicans, but look at the philosophical differences of those that have come to an agreement. it means that it is likely we will have on the floor of the united states senate next month

a company has of immigration reform bill that will include border security, a pathway to citizenship, they will deal with changing the visa numbers for people able to come to the united states and we have a good chance of getting this past. host: you think this does? guest: i think so. host: can you say the same about gun control legislation? guest: well, then control legislation is frustrating. members understand why are reluctant to vote for universal background checks. right now it is too easy for people who should not have guns close thes so why not loopholes question mark the american people -- loopholes? the american people want us to do this. the popular sentiment is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental illness, yet there .ppears to be a hurdle

host: right now you do not have the votes? guest: the boat is at 4:00 p.m. why -- whether we can overcome the. 60 vote threshold -- why i am notto happen, sure. i am confident we have the majority, not the 60. ?ost: do you have the democrats they would have to speak for themselves, but there are several struggling. host: several? more than two? how many republicans do you have? guest: preceding the bill, we had 16. several have said they would not , whichr the compromise

is disappointing. it is a bipartisan compromise. if you read the amendment that our two colleagues wrote it fully protects the second amendment and gun owners. it simply closes loopholes that allow people who should not have guns from getting them easily. it is what it does. it is a simple, straightforward approach. it does nothing to hamper legitimate owners of guns. the more people that read it -- that is why there is popular support -- we hope more senators will vote it. host: are you hoping to get the votes, and if so -- are you helping to get the votes, and if so what are you doing? guest: i am part of the effort to get support for background checks, but we will also have a -- votes on assault weapon bans and large ammunition clips. removing assault weapons from the street will do nothing to

harm legitimate gun owners, but will help public safety. law enforcement tells us this, so i am working with colleagues to get as much support as we can. i gave a speech on the floor of the united states senate last evening on this issue. talking to individual senators, participating in our caucuses. we had an emotional caucus yesterday. give begin heard was there, senator joe met -- getty giffords was there, senator joe manchin gave a speech. senator tim came from virginia talked about what happened at virginia tech. senator blumenthal talked about his experiences at sandy hook. it was an emotional day. host: here is a media advisory put out by senator dan coats office.

be in aenators will press conference to introduce substitute amendment to gun legislation that they say would fix the background check system , provide resources to address mental health and school safety and protect veterans from false health declarations. host: it is an effort to give cover for people voting against gun safety legislation. it will contain the loopholes we currently have in law. the gun show loophole, the internet issues -- they are not resolving his legislation. so, it is a never to say to people who vote for it, "we really are for gun safety when in fact we were responsible for the defeat of gun safety legislation or, that is the intent. ." legislation that is the intent here --

intent here at host: maryland, aberdeen. caller: i would like to see how we would see reduction in gun crimes when illegal gun owners did not and in high-capacity magazines? guest: i am not trying to tell you this will reduce gun violence overnight. what will happen is it will make it more difficult for people who are not entitled to own a weapon to get that weapon. it means it will take them more time which could change their plans on the use of violence -- guns for violence. it will mean that someone who was a domestic abuser will have a harder time in an emotional situation going to a store or a showing getting a gun. if we were to eliminate assault weapons -- talk to law

enforcement. police officers will tell you it is not a fair battle when they show up at a crime scene and the person they are going against as an assault weapon. this is a matter of safety for law enforcement. lastly, at sandy hook, the perpetrator had an ammunition clip with multiple rounds and went into a classroom and put multiple bullets into each one of those children. if we did not have a large ammunition clips, that type of circumstance would not be able to occur. i do not want to over-advertise what this will do as far as safety because there will still be crying and people will still be able to get weapons, why should we not make it more difficult? host: american hero on twitter echoes that saying no matter what law you pass, a criminal a gun,ply and easily by

it just costs more's. -- costs more. mark shared democrat -- mark, democrat in pennsylvania. caller: i want to talk about the sequester. my wife is looking at a furlough and is three years where she is not going to get a raise. it amazes me that the senate can go on with the continuing cr through the end of the sequesterhout getting cuts lifted. i thought it was a good chance for you guys to get the sequester. people do not know that it will go into next year, when he 14, and dod is talking about -- 2014, and dod is talking about layoffs. i think the senate democrats and the president has thrown them under the bus.

it is not fair to our federal workforce and they have sacrificed three years now with a pay freeze. overtime is being eliminated. they are being required to do more with less. the mission remains the same, but the number of people to do it is last and the salary freezes mean they are losing power as far as paychecks are concerned. the president's budget includes additional contributions for pension benefits, which i strongly disagree with. there is more sequester cuts lifted. i thought it was a good chance e detrimental to our federal workforce. sequestration is mindless, across-the-board cuts. they should be eliminated as soon as possible. we never should have reached this banks. we have cut discretionary spending. theeed a budget plan, but savings should not, for discretionary spending. we need to look at mandatory

spending and tax expenditures. i agree completely with your point that it is hurting. i was at so many federal agencies that are compromised in not doing their work. this hits bone. these are critical services that will not be able to be performed. however, it was important not to have a government shutdown. it was important to get past this fiscal year. there was no possibility of removing sequestration in the last rounds of negotiation. there was no chance of removing it in the house and we did not have the 60 ghost in the senate. so -- votes in the senate. we could not do it. he did not have a game plan. it is a failure, that is votes are nothe there. it would have been a greater catastrophe if we hit march 1

without a continuing resolution and government would close down. gone through that before and it causes chaos. last point, we gave agencies additional discretion, which in some cases allow them to make better decisions than having to do a across the board cuts. host: back to immigration on twitter -- will the new immigration bill deal with student visas? guest: the bill was just released and we need to look at specifics. i know it deals with different visas including

highly skilled workers and students. there are provisions that deal with these areas. i have been told in each case it provides a more enlightened policy so that people who want to come to america have an opportunity to come here, but in an orderly way. host: kim, knoxville, tennessee , independent caller. you are up next. caller: you are exactly right that it is too easy for criminals to get guns. it is called fast and furious. the government has allowed the middles to get guns. i suggest you pack -- criminals to get guns. i suggest you pass a law that the government cannot have guns anymore than the american citizens can have guns because if it was not for fast and furious, thousands of people would not have died. host: we will get a response from the senator. guest: there has been a lot of investigations on fast and furious. mistakes were made. those responsible are being held accountable, but that does not change the fact that our law enforcement and rushes into

danger when we all go in the opposite direction -- if they are bringing their service weapon to a crime scene and the person they have to apprehend as an assault weapon -- it just makes common sense that military style weapons are not needed on the streets of our community here at military-style weapons -- community. military-style weapons should be limited to military use. it is not the weapon of choice for hunters. they are not convenient in a security situation. it will usually want a handgun. they will not use the assault weapon. it is not the weapon of choice for hunters or protection. the damage it can cause is certainly pretty evident when we look at some of the mass murders. host: from twitter -- education and quality healthcare will save more lives from gun violence than administrative control. , -- eda, illinois.

--ler: i want to know why this is america, we have the constitution and the bill of rights -- why do we have communists? liberals are communist. they are running our government. --t: senator question mark senator? guest: this is america. we are mindful of people with different views here this country is perceived to be moderate. we have different views, but we come together near the center. i am not sure who you are referring to, but i can tell you i am proud of the men and women who serve in the united states congress. many of whom i disagree with, but i think they are here for the right purpose and we need to

sit down and solve issues. the number one problem this country has is the failure to resolve problems, whether it is the budget, immigration -- these issues cry out for a resolution -- the tax code, regulatory issues. democrats and republicans should reach compromise. that is what our founding fathers envisioned -- sit down, compromise answer and resolve issues. that is the one thing that has been missing in this congress. host: on negotiating and compromise, here is the headline in "wall street journal." stephen hendricks on twitter asks is a grand bargain between democrats, republicans and the

white house still possible? guest: we have to keep working on it. we need a grand bargain. the greatest potential would be through the senate. there are democrats and republicans who meet frequently. we understand what needs to be done. we are closer together than you would think. i am hopeful you will see progress made in direct negotiations between democrats and republicans in the senate. president obama has moved the process forward in two respects. the meetings he has had with republican senators have been extremely valuable and his budget shows flexibility and that we need to take the best from the democrats and republicans and come together on a compromised budget. i do not agree with everything in the president's budget. i have spoken about things with a federal employees that i disagree with, but the president showed he was serious about entitlement savings, we must have more revenue and we

can get that through changes in tax expenditure, though we need a credible plan to deal with the deficit. in listening to democratic and republican colleagues, there is enough common ground and if we could find a mechanism to negotiate in good faith we could reach a so-called grand bargain. host: william on twitter says the private sector and businesses have had to cut back , resize and reevaluate -- why should the government not have to do the same? martha, florida. democratic caller. we have talked about why they have not work together and this has been going on and on aaron it is like mutiny against .he president -- on and on it is like mutiny against the president. i would like to know how grover norquist can get pledges from members of congress because that is like our votes do not even count.

when will these people wake up? every time the republican party -- it is like mutiny against the president. i am tired of it. host: ok, martha. you are exactly right, these third-party pledges are not helpful in the political process. it is important for me as a senator to listen to both sides of both issues and to find common ground that is consistent with my beliefs, but recognizing that our believes the pens upon resolving issues and optimize. and depends upon resolving issues and compromise. it is about moving the country forward. we are on the verge of a major recovery where it looks like economic progress might really take off. we are denying the full growth

of that economic potential in this country if we do not get our budget act together, deal with our tax code, deal with the underpinnings of education and issues like that then allow us to be competitive in a global economy. i think the potential is there. we need to get our act together and that means we need to sit down, work together and resolve issues. .ost: larry, ohio independent caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: this gentleman keeps referring to the crime scenes, the violent crimes. 99% of us gun owners are law- abiding and that is the way we use our guns. internet sales -- you cannot ship a gun in the united states unless it is shipped by a fll dealer and once you receive

that done at your dealer, you have to go through background checks. on the crystal ball thing -- host: larry, let me leave it there and have the congressman respond because that is the front page of "the new york times" dealing with internet sales. what do you make of his comment? guest: first of all, we do have background checks today, but the problem is there are loopholes. the number is about half of the gun sales in the country are not subject to a background check. some are emaciated on the internet. some are casual sales and a lot of her at gun shows where it is not a registered -- and a lot occur at gun shows where it is not a registered dealer. we have heard stories of people buying dozens of guns and they have not been subject to any type of background check. we also have sales were people

by on behalf of other people that are not getting the proper background checks. those type of sales -- we want to make that illegal. the joe manchin, hedrick to me proposal, recognizes -- patrick to me proposal recognizes that there are some sales that are exempt from the amendment, but a commercial transaction would be subject to a background check. that is what i would think you would want to do. today's laws do not cover them. host: david in this a sippy. .epublican -- in mississippi republican caller. caller: when it gets down to the bare bones of it -- inc. about it, there are gun laws, background checks. i think what is more important

is all the guns in this country needs to be registered. every gun has to have a name. every person has to be responsible for their weapon. everybody has to take responsibility. everybody has to be held accountable. if somebody gets a weapon and uses it because it has not been secured, the person who owns the weapon should be held responsible. host: senator? guest: i applaud the suggestion. it is one of the issues we have looked at and there are ways technology-wise to do checks. this legislation does not move in that direction. it is the opposite, prohibiting a national registry so that information about themselves are not made public and not controlled by government. they are controlled by the person who sells the gun, so therefore there is no record of

gun ownership and that is specifically admitted under current law and the bills we are taking up today. the suggestion you are making is one we have had in the past. i do not think there is the legislative support to move that type of proposal, but i agree with you that it is worthy to take a look at. look at both sides had right now there is a missed trust of what government will do with that information. those answers need to be -- questions need to be answered. host: from twitter, the fact that it will not stop all people from getting guns is a weak excuse. let me put another issue on the table. you serve on the foreign affairs committee and this is the headline in the international section of "the new york times." government will do with that information.

norths obama doubts korea can make a nuclear warhead. that capable -- guest: what north korea is doing today is extremely dangerous. they are cutting off the communications between the north and the south. they are making it difficult for us to resolve issues peacefully. it is on explosive situation. i believe that if you look at north korea's capacity, they are not a threat against our homeland. but they are a threat in the region. when you look at how close seou l, korea is to the north korea border, you have to be concerned that there could be serious damage. it is not need a nuclear weapon. there could be serious damage done by an explosion taken place in the border. it is a serious situation. host: so do you disagree with

the president? guest: there is a capacity in north korea that we have to be concerned about with conventional and nuclear weapons. that is a report of what the president said. i think that north korea has limited capacity to be able to deliver a threat against the u.s. homeland. host: and then from "the new york times" again, china's movie starring be tensions. -- china's move is stirring the tensions. guest: china has its own regions -- reasons for saying what it does. the year i save have security arrangements -- the united states has security arrangements with many countries in that region. we have security arrangements with korea, japan, and a whole

host of other countries that are extremely concerned about the development in north korea. so i think we are listening to our allies in the region, doing what we think is in the u.s. security interests, and precautionary steps that we are taking must be taken. you must treat threat seriously. host: back to the gun-control issue on twitter, we should have a national gun registry, responding to the caller on accountability, people should be response will for their guns. gun ownership should be transparent and public. brian in alabama, independent caller. caller: while ago you were talking about the president of the budget and how to count for more revenue. have you ever thought about just stop spending and stop giving our money away to these countries that don't like us? you are not going to pay them to make them like us if they don't like us.

that's it, they don't like us. -- wouldwould just up just stop spending so much money -- host: brian, we lost you. our foreign, diplomacy budget is less than one thing percent of the federal budget. people think it is larger than that. u.s. involvement internationally is important. there are security issues involved. sustainable economy, countries that respect human rights, more stable countries have less need for military intervention. there is a direct economic benefit and security benefit to the united states on international development systems. as far as what we are trying to do on the budget, we balanced the budget 13 years ago when bill clinton was president. at that time, our revenues were about what percent of our economy and our spending with about 20% of our economy.

when ronald reagan was president of the u.s., our revenues were about 20% of our economy. today, revenues are about 60% of our economy, and spending is well over -- revenues are about 16% of our economy and spending as well over 20% cured you are right, we spend too much. we have not really dealt with it as aggressively as we need to on the mandatory side. what we need to also is recognize that we spend $1.2 trillion every year on what we call tax expenditures. these are tax breaks that some taxpayers get, but not all. if you happen to be in a particular field, let's say on energy field, and you might be getting some help from the government on the spending side but you are also getting help from the government on the tax side. why should both be scrutinized? we are not doing that today. when we talk about bringing more revenue and, it is by ,liminating loopholes exemptions, special breaks that people get in our tax codes that are no longer warranted.

we want to get revenue back up to traditional level of about 20%. you want to get spending down to about 20%. and have a magical budget that allows for growth. we want to train our workforce, invest in research and development, modern roads and bridges and transit systems, so america can compete globally. but we want a responsible budget. host: republican caller, you're up next. caller: thank you. i want to comments -- i am frustrated, i am a 40-year-old single gun owner. i am not an nra member of a but i did grow up around guns. a lot of the talk i'm hearing that gun control seems everyone keeps saying it is not about guns keeping away from legal gun owners and everything that goes along with that. it seems like the bulk of us that are not in favor of gun control as it is proposed would be more in favor of a proposal that may be opened up some

avenues to legal gun owners once they pass that background check. for instance, i know there is an automatic assault weapons process that is very long, very difficult to require an automatic weapon. if it is not about keeping guns away from legal gun owners, why don't we remove some of those restrictions from those legal gun owners that can pass the check? guest: the manchin-toomey amendment of that. people who are entitled to have gone to be able to buy in deal -- make it easier for them to obtain guns. it also makes it easier for you to transport guns from one part of the country to another. so there are provisions in this amendment that doesn't respect and expands the right of lawful gun owners. respect and expands the right of lawful gun owners. i do not think there will be a single provision in this amendment that would have any

effect at all on your personal i training of weapons or holding or using your weapon. i do not think there is a single change at all that would affect you other than if you were a veteran, it might make it easier for you to get a gun someplace else if you want to take the gun to another state. if the republicans want you to have a birth certificate to vote, why not have the same to purchase a gun? andy in iowa, democratic caller. caller: my comment is about current events. i will set my comment up. whether it is a drug war in mexico or a distraught nascar fan that commits suicide in the infill of an nra-spiced -- an array-sponsored race -- an nra- sponsored race, i do not think

gun toting vigilantes is the answer or regulation is the problem. guest: we recognize that. one of the problems is the culture of our times and the dealing with the culture of our times. it is not as easy to draft legislation or to give a specific suggestion on how to change that. but clearly the culture of our times, that youngsters from very early days when they're playing video games see a lot of violence, the lifestyles and everything else has absolutely made it more challenging for us to deal with these explosive situations. part of the legislation we're looking at is how we can improve mental health services, safety and our schools -- all of that is important and part of the solution. i agree with you. maryland,y in independent caller. caller: good morning, senator

cardin. back to the immigration bill that is being introduced on the senate floor today, correct? guest: that is right. caller: have a pages are in that bill? guest: i do not know. i have not seen the bill yet. i have not had a chance to read the bill. or atbeing introduced least being released today. i have not had a chance -- it was not given to us in advance. i will probably get it today. -- whenwhen does of the does that bill get voted on? guest: the judiciary committee intends to have a committee markup and about 33 weeks, is my understanding. in aboutill go -- three weeks. it will then go to another committee. my guess is it will be ready for floor action on the united states senate in about two

months. caller: in two months time once all of the changes and markets have been made to the bill, will you pledge to take the time to actually read this bill before you vote on it? guest: yes. caller: that has been my biggest problem with politicians. from both sides of the aisle. , be itmbers of congress senate or house of representatives, were distant -- we are disappointed that you guys are not actually reading the bills before you cast your ballots. guest: immigration reform is an extremely important subject. there will be a lot of provisions in this bill that will deal with related subjects. you are absolutely correct -- it is critically important that we know everything that is in the bill. i come from a state that has a constitutional restriction on legislation. so we get bills that are smaller in scope and easier to

understand. in the congress, we do these on the bus, large bills. our procedures make it extremely difficult to pass narrow bills. so you are correct. we should know everything that is in the bill. each member has a responsibility to understand all of the provisions of the legislation. thank you. has: "the washington post" a detailed breakdown of what is in their proposal with numbers, money figures, etc. so if you interested in that, it in "itten by aaron davis the washington post" this morning. that vote for gun control legislation in the senate today starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. look for our coverage on c-span 2. they will begin with the manchin-toomey compromise. guest: we have nine votes scheduled. the first of the background

check, but we also have a assault weapons, large ammo clips, mental health, school safety -- a lot of issues. twitter user says no need to put more useless laws on the u.s. books when it comes to gun control legislation. reagan alabama, republican caller. caller: i have a question here. i keep hearing the terms. i grew up when a -- in a household with a loaded shotgun and a loaded pistol. those guns never attacked any family members. they just sat there. 71% of the household in chicago, which is an area that has a huge 71%lem with gun violence, of the household have no male figures. maybe we need to exercise more people control and do a little better job instilling values in some of our young people that are not getting that.

secondly, one quick thing, i know we have our allies in the region with korea. who picks up the tab for us posturing to protect them? it seems to me we have no past budget yet, but i am watching senators talk about gun control and the biggest threat to the american way of life right now. you guys need to pass the budget. maybe hop off the tv and get back to work. -- we gotdo have to our budget done for the current year. the budget we are working on will start october 1 of this year. but it will be nice to have it done before october 1. but you are correct -- we do need a budget. as far as the security costs, we do have sharing arrangements with our allies on burden sharing. so this is not at u.s. cost solely. , wee is some u.s. costs

are the ones who requested military facilities in parts of the world, but there is a sharing of some of those costs with our allies. host: on gun control legislation, here with the headline of the "baltimore sun" on tuesday -- high court will not hear challenge to new york gun laws similar to maryland's. what do you make about the court's decision here? guest: i think in the most recent decision, justice scalia making for the court made it clear that yes, the second amendment applies to individuals. they have the right to bear arms. it is not absolute. justice scalia said pretty clearly that those that are not entitled to have guns -- that is perfectly ok. not everyone is entitled to have weapons. does not mean you want -- you can carry a weapon everywhere you want to, especially schools and places like that. local officials have the right to say no to it. so i think the supreme court has been pretty clear on the

guidance that state laws will be respected as long as they are reasonable in the restrictions that they impose on those who cannot have guns and the process to obtain a gun. host: the story said the justices turned down a gun right challenge to the new york gallon -- new york law that limits who can carry a weapon on the street. what is the maryland law say? guest: the law that they just expanded was to expand the assault weapons ban, reduce the number of bullets you can have ,n mo clips from 20 to 10 eliminate loopholes in the background checks, increase penalties. that was the primary focus of the maryland law. host: arnie in california, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: senator, i am old enough to remember the schedule for the civil rights act. in the 1960's.

part of the success of that effort was the public clamoring for it. that was partially the result publishingsts pictures of bull connor and the dogs attacking the protesters and the water canning -- water cannons and the march on the bridge. all of these things were published in the paper and any news. it helped create the public groundswell force. as much as i hate to say it, i ander -- a picture says thousand words. i wonder if in order to get the to demand of our politicians some form of regulation on these guns and reform, if we should not publish the horrible pictures from sandy hook or any of these tragedies.

that is my question. guest: thank you for your comments. the public opinion polls that i've seen has been overwhelmingly in support of universal background checks. i've been told it is 80% of americans agree that we should have a universal background check. that is exactly what the .anchin-toomey amendment does senator schumer's original bill that passed the judiciary committee does. and that is the very first vote we will have at 4:00 this afternoon. it is very clear -- understand that the senators might try to offer alternatives. 4:00,e vote will be at whether they support or don't support eight universal background check on people who want to buy a weapon. as you point out, public opinion is pretty lopsided on this already. 80% believe we should get it done. so i hope that the members of the senate will respect not only , but what view

everyone says we want to do, and that is people who should not have weapons from getting them. ost: most backed and immigration laws is what the polls polls found if you are interested in. senator cardin, thank you for talking to her viewers. guest: thank you, greta. , the coming up next legacy of the late prime minister margaret thatcher. we covered our -- her funeral earlier today on c-span2. we will talk with david rennie buffers aonomist," news update from c-span radio. quite for more on the gun- control legislation in the senate today, nbc's kelly o'donnell tweets that "senators joe manchin tells me we will not get the votes today. expanded background checks to fail in the senate. try again, he says." you can watch live gavel to

cover all coverage on c-span2. the fi warned this morning that an envelope addressed to senator roger wicker will have to undergo more analysis before officials can't confirm whether it contains the poison ricin. the white granular substance tests performed yielded mixed results. u.s. near chicago, the diplomat killed in afghanistan will be laid to rest. she was killed in a bombing with four other americans as they walked from a military base to a nearby school in southern afghanistan. they were on their way to deliver books. she was 25 years old. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. , iover the last four years am a little worried about this administration.

that is part of a long-term trend as i outlined in the book. it is using more and more state powers. a worldview i call liberalism, we will go to a definition of that. as a christian, i am worried when the state,hhs -- state hhs institution wants to mandate that they have to pay for abortions and their insurance programs. i am worried when the supreme court starts taking up things like gay marriage here i am worried about things i see at the universities. i see more and more the state imposing a particular kind of agenda. it is really a worldview. it is bigger than politics, bigger than republican, democrat. >> benjamin wiker on the

liberalism that state religion and the dechristianization of america. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a spotlight on magazine series continues. taking a look at margaret thatcher and her legacy. "avid rennie of th "the economit joined us. inside is a four-page sus to let you helped. the headline is -- no ordinary politician. why is that? guest: from a british perspective, she is one of the rare politicians who saved her own country from a decade-long decline that a lot of people thought was never going to end. an ism.gave the world

she gave us bacherism -- satcher -- thatcherism. host: what does it mean? guest: a believe in individual freedom. individual freedom is linked to private enterprise. the government has evolved in the economy, but if it gets too large and the state interfere, they will crush freedom and growth. that was born out of a deep understanding of what was going wrong in the united kingdom, which was not much of a socialist country as -- by the time margaret thatcher came to power, it was a failed experiment and corporatism. unions and businesses all muddled together and it was a consensus-based structure.

britain was completely broken, runaway inflation, and i was a young child when she came to power. but i remember those strikes. nothing was working, everything that britain made, all of the cars out of our factory -- she brought us the way -- around. it was a painful experience going through that. host: you wrote about her conviction, and the answer to her conviction was in her handbag. she carried around with her a quote from abraham lincoln which strengthen thet weak by weakening the strong. you cannot ring about property by discouraging thrift. and you cannot help you wage earner by pulling down the wage payer." guest: that speaks to her strong points. she looked to america for guidance, and thracian, and strength. it is natural that she would have a link".

quote.incoln she started from an absolute set of core principles, which she brought to every fight. that is obviously a secular text froml lincoln. she was a staunch methodist. she revered her father, a local town counselor. it was a pillar of a local methodist church. i kind of thrift, hard work, self-reliance, not just in economic recipe but a moral recipe. does the government have the right to take the money of the strong to give to the week? thatwas extraordinary redistribution was progress, that it -- the government's role to move towardgly

a nirvana. , whiching those lines are probably not as karen show -- not as controversial in america. the year before she can to power, the tax on earned income was 98%. what that basically means if the government was saying that was the moral position. if you are earning that kind of dividend income, you should not have it. is immoral to have this. this is more money than you need, more money than you should have, therefore the state is going to take it and give it to people less well-off off than yourself. that was the moral consensus. so that seemingly innocuous perhaps, tocoln, american viewers, was incendiary. it was unbelievably radical when she set it back in the 1970's. host: we're talking today about

her legacy legacy, the day that she was buried in england, earlier this morning, 4:15 eastern time. we covered it live. you are seeing there a video of her casket coming into the church there. of this eventke today, and how the country is reacting? guest: it is worth going out that depending on how old people are in britain when they watch with a lot ofced memories. the cathedral is one of the two big national churches in london. it is not the one where we crowne kings or queens, that is westminster abbey, but this is in view of all sorts of ideas about the second war world -- second world war. with ideas of state funerals, winston churchill -- it is also for people of the

right age, it talks about the falklands war because there was extraorrdinary -- an dinary gamble. saving britain's reputation. and a victoryde service. she had a public fight with the head of the church of england about the nature of that service. it should be a victory service or should it be a remembrance of the dead. things were and that point, 1983. the archbishop of canterbury hated thatcher, or dislike her stronger -- her strongly. he wore that metal on his casket in the pulpit in support of the cathedral. and everybody understood that this was his rebuke of the prime minister who is he saw as a warmonger, taking credit for the victory.

.o it is a very political space all of that will be floating around as people watch this ceremonial national parade. the fact that it is in this place. all of that is in the air. host: the video coming from bbc -- when the funeral started, the reverend spoke. one of the first few things he said was a storm of controversy. conflicting opinions about the prime minister. so what is her legacy today? if you are talking about britain, it depends on how can old people are and it depends on where people live. so there are parts of britain where the big, heavy industry

under mrs. thatcher, places like wales, scotland, the north of england. she is frankly hated there. you did see people in the streets with champagne dancing and celebrating her death. personally, i can understand on if one hand, i can see why you are in a mining town a lot since coal mine and there is no work there, it is hard to see anything great about her. , they arejectively missing the role played by globalization if you look at western europe and other countries, noticeably the uk, which close there, that about the same time. because she was such a divisive figure, i think there is a sense in quite a lot of the uk that somehow she chose to close the heavy industry because she hated heavy industry. so vindictively she destroyed those communities.

the case and lots of places. i think a lot of people, and i was at university when she lost humanitiesi was a student, i thought she had basically been a very wicked person. i was frustrated by her colleagues in the conservative party. and i went through a journey which i think a lot of people then went through thinking, although by the end she was very strong, she was very hard to like, very abrasive, she became a kind of a caricature of herself at the end. at the great things he did, -- things she did, high inflation -- 25% inflation. that we allings

sort of thought were terrible at the time, we have come to realize that they were what we need. it was a painful medicine. that is not just people like me working for "the economist," it was people like tony blair, who said he was a child of thatcher. the presumption is that economic activity is best left to the private sector. that was tony blais -- tony blair saying that. if you ask what people say about thatcher, they remember the business. it is almost like the civil war at times. she was celebrated. she was not easy to like. but she left the country in much better say -- better shape. she saved the country. host: let's get callers involved. kelvin from salem. caller: good morning.

continue kudos for the great job you and your team do in giving us the other side, whatever that means on a giving -- a given topic. my question has to be about mrs. thatcher and president reagan. they complemented each other as far as world leaders better than anyone since roosevelt and churchill. but my specific question is overseas of the major involving president reagan, the and then thessue funding of the mujahedin in afghanistan when the soviet union was there, which at that .ime included osama bin laden after president reagan was out of office, i was wondering did lady thatcher ever have any public comments about those two particular blemishes on her good friend's president reagan's record? i will get off the line for your

answer. have to take a pass on a detail. i do not want to make up an answer. i do not know if she made any comments or in generally, -- andy comments. in general, she cannot not have been more unwavering in her support of president reagan. just the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to sort of speak half-truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the placing of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some will tell you it was almost like moses parting the red sea. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly, the truth telling was not irrelevant. hope tonor ms.

dissidents working behind the eastern bloc. domestically, they had a -- theyusly important were trying something very radical. they wanted a break with the economic policies of the past. the fact that they were not isolated, they could point to someone on the other side of the ocean in charge of this was important. that made quite a difference. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher, people who work closely to president reagan saying it made a difference. he is not on his own. there is an impressive leader in europe who shares his ideas. host: was it vice versa for her in britain? guest: it was. famously, they got along well. but there were differences. it is interesting seeing aftericans claiming her her death as almost a second reagan, a second half of a

secular icon. theiriming her almost at own. is important to remember that lady thatcher raise sales taxes to compensate lowering income taxes. she was not in any way on the same page as president reagan there. raisingle sort of taxes, revenues, don't worry about deficits. she was the housewife adding up the public book in her handbook -- and her handbags. she was much more cautious than reagan and economic policies. host: republican caller. caller: i'm from manchester, england. i grew up in los angeles. but i frequently visit my relatives in england during -- in englad. -- in england.

in the early 1980's him i was talking to my cousins, and they really hated margaret thatcher because they thought she was a direct threat to their own livelihood. they were prounion, labour party, and they believed thatcher was going to take away their jobs, their home, their education. , and there two years ago the same cousins still hate thatcher. they blame her for all of england's economic woes, the breakup of the uk. that if it feel wasn't for the government, for socialism, they would have nothing. these people are physicians and actuaries, they are well educated. came from working classes in manchester. they cannot seem to pull away from the belief that if it wasn't for marxist policies and

socialism, they would have absolutely nothing. but conversely when you talk about the falkland islands, when i talk to them about the falkland islands back what was happening, and now, they both had the same attitude. but the falkland islands was for the british empire. though they may not like their prime minister, thatcher at the time, the falkland islands was a very strong issue with them and that it was british old empire. and it was an affront to them. host: we will leave it there. guest: it is fascinating to hear that on the ground reports. you are quite white -- you work right -- you are quite right. with theo lived in d publics sector were angry then and angry now. she was quite a paradox. throughout her first two terms,

she was cautious. her rhetoric was strong, and she did bold things in terms of taking on specific unions, particularly the coal miners, but in fact if you look at the share of national wealth those in the public sector, it is not fall. she in fact increased spending on the public health, the national health services. so people did not give her credit for it. because her rhetoric was all about bringing back the state and raising entrepreneurs. she had a famous phrase about indicating her contempt of public transport. by said that a young man who the time he was 30,@he was writing a bus when you are 30, you could consider yourself a failure. she had a love of the great car economy. american thingn to say. that kind of contempt for the public transport, the community

is losers, the future is entrepreneurs. tish.is quite unbri it was hated not just on the left but also by those on the right. , regal in herness own -- old age. but she was also against the top. , whoe old, aristocratic were also slightly disdainful of those in grubby business and trade, they were shaken up by her two. it is a very paradoxical legacy. but that fax and dating makes -- that fascinating mix of the falklands in the public sector. host: you either really love her or you called her thatcher milk snatcher. latering a picture of the prime minister back in 2006.

this is added to the conversation -- both thatcher and reagan made it possible for banks to gamble the future of its children. the loosening of bank regulation robbed middle-class. are putting lady thatcher's goes on trial, and you were the council of the prosecution, i do not think you can get away from the question, were some of those bank regulations mistaken ?- mistaken the broader context is that ,ondon has the financial system the financial center look like it was slipping away in a 1970's. the deregulation made london -- now it is an extra ordinary united nation of finance. it has around the world trading progress. that was her creation. spoke -- it brought a tremendous wealth and risk to the uk. it made it a risky sector.

back tople want to go the old-fashioned days where there were a few sleepy stop -- stockbrokers collecting fees and a few merchant banks having long lunches and not much else. i do not think we will want to go back to that. what she shook up was not worth saving. within that very -- within that, their worst is the fixings. to simplify it, she removes the barrier between those two. and let the banks kind of do it all. that has been tremendously volatile. but as with so many things about margaret thatcher, people want to go back to what came before? i don't think they would. host: democratic caller. caller: i was wondering if the same thing has happened in

britain that has happened in the reagan,tates since thatcher, deregulation. at this point, we are suffering from deindustrialization. there are few good paying manufacturing jobs for middle- class people. mobileok around, my device, my note, my radio, my phone that i am using, my television, my dvd player, all that that stuff now made in low- wage countries. host: gotcha point, ralph. david rennie. guest: people in the uk would blame margaret thatcher for that. has a much more lasting political tradition, much stronger unions, never went through thatcherism.

you don't see a nook made in belgium. the role story of the decade before the fall of the berlin wall and the opening of china, it again in 1989, the real story was that with china coming on board with india, with the soviet union collapsing and workers in low-wage factories in the globaleurope, stock of capulet -- of capital did not double. andhe absence of china eastern europe and africa for global competition stopped. they came back haven't been artificially absent. those forces are far bigger than the deregulation that margaret thatcher or ronald reagan put in

place. the primeovered minister's q&a on c-span. i want to go back to 1989 when ,s. thatcher was speaking doing the prime minister q&a and talking about the role of government versus business when it comes to training workers. here is what she had to say. [video clip] >> i was talking about training. had the trade unions opportunities. i would like to get on a little bit more of my own speech, then i will give way later. i was talking about training and havehe trade unions frustrated the trading scheme. employees are -- employers are investing heavily to the tune of 18 billion pounds a year. that is on top of the 31 billion pounds they invested last year and machinery. of course we must do better steer -- still if we're going to compete with germany and japan.

that's why we argue with business in the lead. it is business that knows how to run business. does business that' training and not the arrogance of politicians who think that they can run everything. host: david rennie? guest: vintage margaret thatcher. that kind of sense of a woman alone surrounded by men as far as the eye can see, she was oan extraordinary figure. she likes to fight. to fight.ed she liked a challenge of smacking down these useless men -- youthless men. when she attacked the unions, she needed an enemy. the argentinethat

dictatorship attacked the falklands when they did. she might have lost the next election. she was very lucky with the man who ran the national union of mining workers. he was very hard-line. .he used that luck to her full 1995 interview on her book, "the path to power him go the former prime minister recount or -- recounted advice given to her by her father by not following the crowd. [video clip] >> i said to my father one evening, i would like to go with my friend on a walk. he said, never do things just because other people do them. that is a very bad thing to do. only mind what you want to do.

don't ever just follow the crowd. it was very good advice. i did not go for the walk. never be bewitched by public opinion polls. ,et up your political risible explain what you believe in and why, and how you are going to implement then. if you set your hands to a task, you must complete it. persevere until you see it through. host: david rennie? is fascinating because it shows lady thatcher after she had left office. she was turning into a mythic figure.

she did do some u-turns. she was more cautious than she let on. it is important for a politician not to be swayed by opinion polls. if you think about that story of her father, it is basically bonkers. why would you not let your child go for a walk. there is a danger toward the end. she turned into this kind of mount rushmore in a dress. i think it is a shame because it ,cares how clever she was especially in her first two terms when she would advance to step forward, one step back. she chose her fights carefully. she chose her enemies carefully. and she was lucky. toward the end, you could see that dominated them -- domination getting her in trouble. she proposed what was called the poll tax.

aswas a flat rate, local tax opposed to an income tax or property tax. the idea took hold that a dutchman or aid duke would pay the same. the country reacted incredibly badly. she had gotten into that dogmatic mindset. it ultimately undid her. host: c-span democrat on twitter -- people would not prefer to go back, but they would probably perform her firm to the cutthroat and disruptive way. john from north carolina, independent caller. caller: i am sitting and watching two speakers in america talk about maggie thatcher as if she was some kind of angel. i was born in barbados. i first migrated to england in 1964 as a young man, six years old. i remember maggie thatcher's campaigns before she became prime minister.

she was a racist. she called us scalia walks. i am a black man. ywogs.ll in theer, who worked transport, would talk about the bus. if you are 30 and so they gave us -- she hated you. guest: i think it is a tremendously important point. i would argue that she was not racist, certainly by the time she was prime minister, you did not see racism on her. she certainly had some very important moments where she was insensitive toward race anyway in anas -- at a time intense disquiet. there was a very bad riots in a

very poor area of south london were a lot of jamaicans and caribbean' migrants lived. this clearly caused a public cry out. instead of going down, looking for a consistent, trying to understand what led people to riot and caused for minister's, and causelly -- disruption, she basically stood next to global stock keepers and sympathize with their losses of their stock in their broken windows. to ignore any of the rage on the streets. that was a failure. and a serious failure. what was margaret thatcher pose the greatest crisis during her time in power? how does she resolve the problem? turnedthe one i could've

history completely with the falklands war. it is islands 6000 miles away from the uk. they were invaded out of the blue by an argentine tatar ships -- dictatorship. her military commanders said we are not sure we can pull this off, getting them back. -- she setoff with off the next ordinary -- off an inary convoy. they came under attack by argentine lanes and summer sun. if a couple of more had been sunk sunk, we would have lost. she would have been taken out of office and she would have gone down as a risk-taking, failure of a politician after only a few years in office. didshe was fantastic and get secret help from president reagan, although america was supposedly neutral.

they left munition and supplies for us, give us missiles, satellite intelligence. that was the moment when she gambled everything. gamble.n extraordinary she changed the way that the british thought about themselves. we had been used to thinking about ourselves in a sort of decline from world war ii and a sense that we have lost our way. ism is corporate ism of, by, and for big business. republican caller. what hei was curious -- still allowed to be propped up by colloquial sophistry? guest: you could get into an interesting argument about whether her economic record stands the test of time. i think that is what you are

really saying. that she came in as a very bold , monetarist, supporter of milton friedman. she was not exactly on the same page as ronald reagan. she reinders will say in inflation. she was right with this very tight fiscal policy at a time of high unemployment. 364 economists wrote to the times saying her policy was completely wrong and it was exactly the wrong thing to do. orthodox economic consensus telling her she was doing exactly the wrong thing. so you could make a case, we make the case, that she was doing the right thing and sort of challenging the orthodoxy that governments could always print money and the government

is always the solution, expanding the economy is always a solution. we had a gigantic problem with inflation. she put much more is this is on curbing inflation. , putting theng ghost of lady thatcher on trial, the prosecution would say, other economies took a different path and their economies recovered at the same time, so perhaps some of it was more to do with macro site curbs -- macro cycles and the wider economy. you could get into details economic arguments. i think her precise economic legacy, things that she was very obsessed with our very ended u.s.. -- are very in big u.s.. much too mucheld power. it was copied elsewhere. that was her contribution to history and to economics. host: jd on twitter asks this

question -- pms thatcher had to terrorism consulate in the country. what kind of legacy did she leave their? let's not forget that the irish republican very nearly killed her. a gigantic bomb went off in the hotel very close to where she was, which was intended to kill her. in killing some of leaving some of the wise, governesses and will cherish forever. there were ireland bombs throughout my time growing up in london. you may remember when there were irish republicans on hunger strikes in prison in northern ireland claim and that they wanted the right to political prisoners, she let them go. that was one of many devices

made. but, going back to that paradox, all of that dogmatism, for all of that confrontational rhetoric of hers, she did also find some of the early legislation that was giving much more power to northern ireland. it was a pragmatic thing to do. and began the first steps of due process, which ultimately involved more of local power in book -- and northern ireland. in manner, she was fantastically confrontational. people close to her had been killed, she became for close being murdered. so of course it was personal. question -- is it true that the white house did not send any representatives to the thatcher funeral? -- from the paper

host: joseph, lincoln, nebraska , democratic caller. make it quick. my minister cameron, you guys are under a triple debt recession. something like 14% growth a few years ago. now are at 7.7%. none the less, that is better than what is going on. britain is being pointed

out by critics as a case study of the mistake of fiscal tightening. clearly that has echoed thatcherism. all i can tell you is the british government can say that britain is a small island with a gigantic economic sector. at some point, international bond markets are going to lose a finance. the only solution was to show great seriousness and getting the public finances back in shape because we were sort of running on borrowed time. we were way over the dangers levels. the current coalition government is standing by that. it is causing pain. there is no doubt that it is part of thatcher's legacy. host: quickly before the house comes into session, and other went -- when pms thatcher to war in the falklands, is this an example that women leaders are strong military manners? guest: